Nuclear Colonialism Epistemic Injustice and Remedial Duties: Jaduguda and Chagai in South Asia

Abstract

The nuclear fuel cycle in South Asia functions through a spatial paradigm of sacrifice whereby uranium mining in India and nuclear test areas in Pakistan transfer environmental and biological costs to the politically marginalized indigenous people. This situation — what this article calls epistemic injustice — is the institutional rejection of subaltern health knowledge by state-approved scientific experts, constituting a distinct form of humanitarian harm that requires remedial duties under evolving customary international law.

Keywords

nuclear colonialism; epistemic injustice; South Asia; Jaduguda; Chagai; indigenous rights; remedial duties; TPNW; FPIC

Table of Contents

1. Introduction
2. Theory and Methodology
3. Jaduguda: Mining, Health, and Silence
4. Chagai: Tests, Fallout, and Censorship
5. International Law and the Protection Gap
6. Remedies: Truth, Care, and Law
7. Conclusion and Recommendations

1. Introduction

The human cost of nuclear governance in South Asia is rarely visible in diplomatic communiqués or technical reports. Yet in the villages along the Subarnarekha River and the scrublands of the Chagai Hills, the consequences are intimate and intergenerational: malformed births, reproductive crises, chronic illness, and a pervasive sense of abandonment. This article compares Jaduguda (Jharkhand, India) and Chagai (Balochistan, Pakistan) to show how state practice and scientific gatekeeping produce what I term “epistemic injustice” — the systematic dismissal of indigenous testimony — and to propose remedial duties grounded in evolving international norms.

2. Theory and Methodology

This study draws on critical geography of law and epistemic injustice theory to analyze how nuclear projects create “sacrifice zones.” Methodologically, it uses comparative case studies, synthesizing litigation records, NGO and peer-reviewed studies, independent geological surveys, and oral testimonies collected by local advocates. The aim is normative as well as descriptive: to translate lived harm into legal claims and policy remedies.

3. Jaduguda: Mining, Health, and Silence

Since the late 1960s, the Uranium Corporation of India Limited (UCIL) has operated mines and tailings dams at Jaduguda. Local communities — primarily Santhal and Munda Adivasi — rely on the Subarnarekha River for drinking, bathing, and agriculture. Over decades, NGO surveys and epidemiological studies have reported elevated rates of congenital malformations, miscarriages, and cancers in villages downstream of tailings sites. An NHRC report concluded that tailings operations have contaminated the river and harmed reproductive health.⁵

Yet official responses have been dismissive. The Department of Atomic Energy and state experts have characterized local complaints as superstition; dose-reconstruction studies have often excluded or minimized community testimony. Litigation has been slow and courts have tended to defer to state expertise. The human stories — mothers who cannot carry pregnancies to term, children born with deformities, elders weakened by chronic illness — are frequently absent from technical dossiers, even though they are central to understanding harm.

4. Chagai: Tests, Fallout, and Censorship

Pakistan’s 1998 tests in the Chagai Hills were framed as national triumphs. For Bugti and Marri communities, the tests brought ground shock, visible damage to wells and homes, and suspected radioactive contamination. Independent geological surveys have reported traces of tritium and caesium-137 in groundwater samples; local hospital records initially showed unusual spikes in illness that were later classified or censored. Requests for longitudinal epidemiological research have been rebuffed.

The pattern mirrors Jaduguda: state narratives of security and sovereignty crowd out local suffering; classification and non-production of data function as epistemic violence, preventing causal attribution and legal remedy. A Bugti elder’s lament — “We were told this was for the nation; our children pay the price” — captures the moral dissonance.

5. International Law and the Protection Gap

International instruments offer normative resources but also reveal limits. The Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW)¹ requires victim assistance and environmental remediation for states parties, but India and Pakistan are non-parties. The UN General Assembly’s recognition of the right to a clean, healthy, and sustainable environment² provides a universal normative basis. The International Law Commission’s Draft Principles on Protection of the Environment in relation to Armed Conflicts³ articulate duties of remediation. UNDRIP⁴ requires free, prior, and informed consent (FPIC) for resource projects on indigenous lands.

Together, these instruments expose a protection gap: international law remains state-centric, and remedial obligations often depend on treaty membership or political will. Where states control knowledge production through classified data, [⚠️ AUTHOR TO CONFIRM: “stated studies” — probable typographical error; likely intended: “skewed studies,” “slanted studies,” or “suppressed studies”], or refusal to permit independent research, affected communities are left without the evidence courts and international bodies typically demand.

6. Remedies: Truth, Care, and Law

Three interlocking remedies can begin to close the gap. First, establish independent, transnational fact-finding and health monitoring mechanisms that institutionalize epistemic pluralism. A Truth, Health and Remediation Commission (THRC) for South Asia would combine independent scientists with community-nominated representatives to conduct longitudinal studies, collect oral histories, and recommend remediation. Second, provide immediate medical and psychosocial care via mobile clinics and a regional victim assistance fund seeded by donors, industry levies, and state contributions. Third, pursue legal and constitutional reforms: recognize the right to a healthy environment domestically, enact FPIC statutes, and create independent regulatory bodies for mining and nuclear activities.

Operationally, these measures require safeguards: community data sovereignty, transparent funding, witness protection, and legal pathways for strategic litigation. They also require narrative reframing — shifting public discourse from national pride in nuclear capability to the human costs borne by marginalized people.

7. Conclusion and Recommendations

The cases of Jaduguda and Chagai show that nuclear governance can produce slow, intergenerational harm compounded by epistemic injustice. Law can respond by recognizing victim assistance and remediation as universal duties, by institutionalizing epistemic pluralism in fact-finding, and by embedding FPIC and environmental rights into domestic constitutions and regulatory regimes.

Immediate recommendations: establish THRC pilots; deploy mobile clinics and baseline environmental sampling; seed a South Asia victim assistance fund; and draft FPIC and environmental rights legislation. Over time, these steps can help transform nuclear governance from a system of secrecy and sacrifice into one of transparency, care, and universal civilian protection.

Footnote(S):

¹ Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons, Arts. 6–7.

² UN General Assembly, Resolution A/RES/76/300 (2022) (right to a clean, healthy and sustainable environment).

³ International Law Commission, Draft Principles on Protection of the Environment in relation to Armed Conflicts (2022).

⁴ United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP).

⁵ [NHRC Report — Author to supply full citation: title, year, and reference number before publication.]

Bibliography

• Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW).
• UNGA Resolution A/RES/76/300 (2022).
• ILC Draft Principles on Protection of the Environment in relation to Armed Conflicts (2022).
• UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP).
• [Selected NGO and peer-reviewed reports on Jaduguda and Chagai — Author to append full citations before publication.]